Reuters: NIMBY in Switzerland (and misreporting assisted suicide law)

Hot off the Press:

Right-to-die group barred from premises

ZURICH (Reuters) – Right-to-die group Dignitas has been barred from its premises in a Zurich suburb after neighbors objected to the use of the apartment for assisted suicides, the local council said Wednesday.

It was the second blow for the non-profit association this year, after it was forced to move from a previous suburban Zurich apartment when residents complained.

Last week, the local council ordered the charity to stop using the new apartment and apply to change its official function from a residence to an “assisted suicide flat.”

“Dignitas continued to ignore the ban and still carried out assisted suicides,” council official Daniel Scheidegger told Reuters. “So we decided to enforce the ban.”

It’s apparent that no matter what Swiss attitudes are about euthanasia and assisted suicide, there’s a strong sentiment against having one’s neighborhood cluttered up with people being carted out in body bags on a regular basis.

Unsurprisingly, Reuters journalist Tom Armitage manages to once again misrepresent just who is “eligible” for suicide assistance in Switzerland:

The laws, some of the most liberal in the world, have led in recent years to “suicide tourism,” where terminally ill foreigners travel to Switzerland to die.

Armitage must not read the British press, which has carried stories about non-terminally ill Brits who have gone to Switzerland for “assistance” in committing suicide, as mentioned in this BBC piece on Dignitas:

The group, based in Zurich, has caught the headlines as people with chronic diseases from around the world travel to Switzerland to ask for its help in committing suicide.

Armitage must have been asleep when the news came out that Switzerland’s Supreme Court gave the “thumbs up” to assisting the suicides of some people with psychiatric labels.

We should all have an open and honest debate about these issues. But sometimes it’s hard to see how there’s a hope of having one when basic factual misinformation like this keeps getting re-reported. –Stephen Drake

Minimally Conscious State, Research, and the Elephant in the Living Room

In early August, before we started this blog, there was a flurry of attention given to the latest research showing an intervention that brought about remarkable improvement in a man who was in a “minimally conscious state.” This is not the first development in this area to make the news, but it might have created more of a stir since the technique used probably resonates with the kind of “cure” story the public seems to like so much:

NEW YORK — He was beaten and left for dead in a robbery while walking home one night in 1999. His skull was crushed and his brain severely damaged.

For six years, the man could not speak or feed himself. On occasion he showed signs of awareness, and he moved his eyes or a thumb to communicate. His arms were useless. He was fed through a tube.

But researchers chose him for an experimental attempt to rev up his brain by placing electrodes in it. And here’s how his mother describes the change in her son, now 38:

“My son can now eat, speak, watch a movie without falling asleep,” she said Wednesday while choking back tears during a telephone news conference. “He can drink from a cup. He can express pain. He can cry and he can laugh.

“The most important part is he can say ‘Mommy’ and ‘Pop.’ He can say, ‘I love you, Mommy’ … I still cry every time I see my son, but it’s tears of joy.”

As I said, this wasn’t the first report that there might be more cognitive ability in some people with labels of “minimally conscious state” (MCS) and even “persistent vegetative state” (PVS) than commonly believed. Some of the research isn’t even that new. For example, in 1996 BMJ published an article by Andrews et al reporting the findings that 43% of the patients transferred to a rehabilitiation facility between 1992 and 1995 with a PVS diagnosis were misdiagnosed.

But that didn’t study didn’t make much news in the U.S. Increasingly, though, attention is being given to the uncertainty surrounding the degree of consciousness people with severe brain injury may have and what the future might hold for them.

What’s really gotten my attention, though, is what is not being asked or talked about in American media and bioethics circles. Questions are being asked about the fates of people being “written off” and left without therapy in nursing homes. But I can’t find any discussion in the American press talking about the life and death consequences that go with the PVS and MCS diagnoses, even in articles that include a mention of Terri Schiavo.

Isn’t it obvious that should be part of the discussion regarding the implications of research into consciousness and recovery? As mentioned in an earlier blog entry, 43 bioethicists signed onto a “friend of the court” brief in the Wendland case wanting to make it easier for families to end the lives of people with a diagnosis of MCS. It’s impossible to know just how many people with varying labels and degrees of cognitive disability die as a result of treatment withholding or withdrawal. Between the people with labels of both PVS and MCS whose lives have been ended through removal of feeding tubes, it’s virtually certain that at least some people have faced that end, silent and aware of what was being done to them.

So what’s going on here? Is this a classic case of the elephant in the living room? I’m not a big conspiracy theorist myself, so I doubt there’s collusion among medical professionals, bioethicists and the press in this country to avoid the topic. Although in the case of medical professionals and bioethicists, I suspect the silence may be similar to the uncomfortable silence you get when you talk to a Christian conservative about the virtual certainty that innocent people have been killed for being convicted of a capital crime.

The parameters surrounding the discussion aren’t shared by others outside this country. In 2004, Laura Spinney of The Guardian covered both the emerging research on misdiagnosis and the life and death consequences that hinge on an individual showing signs of consciousness soon enough in “Blink and You Live”:

When a 39-year-old Belgian woman suffered a stroke and fell into a coma, doctors concluded that she was unlikely to regain consciousness and, after a time, diagnosed her condition as persistent vegetative state (PVS). One of the criteria on which they based their decision was her inability to blink or track a moving object with her eyes. It was only when they discovered that the stroke had damaged a cranial nerve, preventing her from opening her eyes, that they realised their error. If they opened her eyes for her, she followed their instructions. Having regained full consciousness soon after her stroke, she revealed she had overheard all the bedside discussions as to whether it was worth keeping her alive. At no point had she wanted to die.

Others might not be so lucky. Research suggests that many patients left to die after being diagnosed as in PVS might have eventually recovered. They may have been in a twilight condition called minimally conscious state (MCS), which has until now proved difficult to identify. In recent years, MCS has muddied the waters further on what it means to be alive, and confused the debate over when is the right time to pull the plug.

See? The Brits can tackle these issues head on instead of sticking their heads in the sand. Surely we Yanks can do the same, can’t we? Can we talk about these research developments and talk about what it means in terms of “pulling the plug”? –Stephen Drake

More on Vatican Statement on Tube Feeding – Reactions and Overreactions

Last week, this blog briefly covered the news regarding the new statement from the Vatican clarifying the Church’s position on the obligation to provide food and water by artificial means in countries with advanced technology and resources.

In the entry on the AJOB Bioethics Blog, Kelly Hills expresses these concerns:

The clarification becomes important because although Catholic doctrine does oppose euthanasia, it allows for the cessation of heroic, futile (extraordinary, and potentially painful) efforts. At question, then, has been whether or not tube-nourishment constitutes extraordinary or heroic efforts that are therefore optional under Catholic doctrine.

Ultimately, this affects more than “just” Catholics – many hospitals around the world are run by Catholic organizations who will feel bound by the ruling, and will enforce the decisions stemming from it regardless of whether or not the patient themself is Catholic.

The concern expressed here is a little premature. Catholic ethicists in the U.S. have been at the forefront of pushing the idea that tube-feeding is “extraordinary treatment” and that there is no obligation to provide it to people in PVS. In fact, organizations such as the Alliance of Catholic Health Care supported the legal efforts in California to allow the removal of a feeding tube from Robert Wendland, who was in what is now called a “minimally conscious state.” The brief that the Alliance signed was endorsed by 43 bioethicists and would have made it much easier to legally end the lives of people who are conscious but unable to communicate effectively or consistently.

And, in fact, in a September 21 article in the Chicago Tribune, Catholic ethicist James Walter expressed his fears about the Vatican statement on people in “minimally conscious state.”:

Particularly vulnerable are patients who are minimally conscious and who may be suffering acutely from their disabilities but are unable to express themselves, Walter said.

More than 100,000 patients in the U.S. have this type of extreme cognitive disability.

Walter is the director of Loyola Marymount University’s bioethics institute, in California where the battle over the life of Robert Wendland and other people under guardianship was waged.

As to the idea that this will bring deaths through feeding tube removal to a halt? Let’s be real – even when institutions want to change course, they’re unable to turn on a dime.

And it’s doubtful that many of them will want to go along. And they already have their “spin” in hand. In the Tribune article, the Rev. Michael Place of Resurrection Health Care showed his organization is ready:

“We now have a clarity in principle we did not have,” but individual cases will still need to be decided on their own, he said.

Translation: We’ll find reasons to justify our actions as we protect the status quo. Everyone can take a deep breath and relax. People will still be able to die through denial of treatment, even if they never expressed a wish one way or another. –Stephen Drake

Do bioethicists actually read the stories they post on blogs?

Last week, the news broke that the Vatican issued a ruling that “clarified” the Catholic Church’s position on artificial nutrition and hydration in regard to individuals diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. There will be more on this blog about this next week – mostly about some of the “the sky is falling” comments from some ethicists in news stories, and whether or not anything will really change in Catholic health care facilities when it comes to the removal of feeding tubes from people diagnosed with PVS.

But what really caught my eye right off the bat was how fast Kelly Hills posted the Reuters story on the Vatican ruling to the AJOB Bioethics Blog and the Women’s Bioethics Blog. The Reuters article has a really glaring inaccuracy, which doesn’t get a comment from the “experts” at these two blogs. Remembering that the Vatican ruling clearly is making statements about the treatment of people in PVS, see if you can spot what’s wrong with the closing of the Reuters article:

Bioethicists opposed to the unconditional use of feeding tubes argue that such nourishment can keep the bodies of brain-dead patients functioning even though the person is effectively dead. They say this is wrong for both the patient and the family.

The article confuses “brain death” with “vegetative state.” Shouldn’t that be something that the public should be clear on if we are to discuss these issues? I guess maybe Hills and the other folks at the bioethics blogs didn’t bother to read the article. The alternative explanation is that they don’t mind the public getting “brain death” and “vegetative state” confused. –Stephen Drake

Calif.: Another Hospital Death, Documented Neglect and Fraud, But No One Did Anything Wrong

This newest case of apparent death through neglect and malpractice came to my attention by way of Penny Richards at the Disability Studies blog, in “Yes, it can happen. It does happen.”

Penny has some good comments on the death of Linda Sue Brown, and I urge interested people to read them.

But you also need to read the full account of the death of Linda Sue Brown, available at the LA Times (free registration required for access) in a story titled “Two nurses lose sister, find their faith in medical system shaken.”

For 50 years Linda Sue Brown’s nine siblings fiercely protected her, facing down anyone who would taunt her or seek to exploit the disability that left her with the mental capacity of a 12-year-old.

That sense of responsibility only grew after their 81-year-old mother, Brown’s lifelong caretaker, was stricken with Alzheimer’s disease, leaving her unable to tend to her daughter. So when Brown’s lower legs swelled last summer and she grew short of breath, her eldest sister rushed her to a place the family knew and trusted: Brotman Medical Center in Culver City. One of Brown’s sisters, Thelma Allen, worked there as a nurse; another, Rosslyn Diamond, had previously been a nurse there. And Brown had been treated there, successfully, for years.

At the 420-bed hospital, tests revealed that Brown had an enlarged heart, fluid in her lungs and severe anemia, medical records show. She received blood transfusions and, two days later, an emergency hysterectomy. Afterward, Allen was given an unorthodox, but welcome, assignment: She was to be one of Brown’s nurses.

On July 4, after her shift ended, Allen watched TV with Brown, then kissed her good night.

By the time she returned the next morning, her sister was dead.

The death was probably caused by a pulmonary embolism, a clot of blood blocking an artery to the lungs, Diamond recalled the surgeon saying. If so, nothing could have saved her.

For most grief-stricken relatives, the questions would have ended here. Patients die unexpectedly in hospitals every day. If families have vague doubts about why and how, they typically lack the knowledge and access to get answers.

But Diamond, 60, and Allen, 59, vowed to find out what happened to their sister.

Along the way, they discovered that their decades of experience afforded them little advantage over any other bereaved family. Instead, almost everything they believed about the medical profession was turned on end. And ultimately, the answers they battled to get have provided little comfort.

After months of investigation, state health inspectors determined that Brown’s death was nothing so random as an embolism.

Brotman staffers, the inspectors found, had failed Brown in virtually every way: Her nurses — Allen’s colleagues — appear to have forged consent forms and had Brown sign agreements that she couldn’t understand. One failed to call for help as Brown’s vital signs plummeted.

Her doctors didn’t investigate signs of heart failure, performed a risky emergency surgery with no clear justification and then didn’t intervene as her condition deteriorated. And hospital officials didn’t even look into what went wrong until inspectors inquired.

There’s plenty more in this long investigative article.

Like this about the outcome of the investigation by the State Medical Review Board:

In July, the sisters got a final shock: A three-page letter from the state medical board arrived, explaining that its investigation of Brotman physicians was closed. Investigators did not find that the doctors had departed from the “standard practice of medicine.”

Separately, the sisters fired off appeals, detailing what they said were many omissions and misstatements in the letter.

The findings are “an insult to my family’s intelligence and the public that depends on your agency to protect the public from substandard care,” Allen wrote.

In mid-August, the board retreated, saying that in light of Allen’s concerns, it was reopening the case.

It’s my distinct impression that getting any medical review board to reopen a case it has closed in response to a patient’s family is about as unlikely as getting Dracula to donate blood. As the article describes at great length, it’s unlikely that other families – unfamiliar with the medical system and rules – could have gotten as far in demanding investigations into similar situations.

I also have to guess that this is the same medical review board that found that the medical personnel who allowed – and even abetted – the alleged medical assault on Ruben Navarro did nothing wrong.

Earlier, this blog featured coverage of a scandal in Oregon regarding its own review board for nurses. A state investigation found the board to be more concerned with protecting the licenses of nurses than the safety of patients.

Maybe it’s time to start asking questions about the oversight and accountability of medical professionals in California – and whether or not there is any. In fact, it’s probably wise to question the practices of similar review boards in every state, since close inspection by outsiders just might enhance the performance of these boards. –Stephen Drake